Board debates inconsistent treatment of Megan’s Law registrants in petitions and new‑applicant rules

Physical Therapy Board staff warned the board about an inconsistency between two parts of law: a provision that directs denial of licensure to some applicants who must register under Penal Code section 290 (the *** Offender Registration Act, commonly called “Megan’s Law”) and the board’s existing authority to hear petitions for reinstatement from previously licensed practitioners who remain registrants.

Staff explained that Business and Professions Code language applied to applications—cited in the meeting as section “26 60.5”—requires the board to deny a new application from someone who is required to register under Penal Code section 290, with a narrow misdemeanor exception for indecent exposure. By contrast, the transcript shows the board “would have to hear” petitions submitted after revocation, even if the petitioner remains a Megan’s Law registrant.

“This is an inconsistency,” staff said. They recommended the board study whether its petition language should be changed so a petitioner who remains required to register would be treated similarly to a new applicant and potentially ineligible to petition for reinstatement while on the registration list; implementing such a change would require legislation.

Staff also told the board that petition hearings are expensive—staff estimated a single petition can cost “upwards of $10,000” when accounting for legal and administrative hearing costs—and said some boards have proposed charging a petition fee comparable to a new‑applicant fee to offset costs while being mindful of due‑process protections. The board discussed alternatives that other licensing boards use, including extending the time before a petition may be filed and creating limits on repeated petitions.

Why it matters: the board’s stance affects both public safety and due process. New‑applicant rules reflect legislative direction to deny licensure in certain cases tied to Penal Code section 290; petition rules currently allow a petitioner to appear before the board after three years, even if still registered. Staff framed the potential legislative change as aligning petition practice with the application disqualification.

Next steps: staff said it will analyze petition volume and costs, consider possible statutory language to align petition and application treatment for Megan’s Law registrants, and return with recommended options. No formal vote or legislative change was made at this meeting.